Gay Gods of Gaming

GGOG Episode 8 – At What Price St. Patrick’s Gay?

This week the Gay Gods of Gaming, spurred by controversy in Boston and elsewhere, ask why cant LGBTQ groups march openly in St. Patrick’s Day Parades everywhere? After picking our way through the difficult issues related to minority participation in such parades, we offer, as always, our judgment. Then, we wonder about the price of gaming as a hobby: are games too expensive? Does the expense of gaming exclude those less financially able? Is Titanfall worth $60? We pass judgment. Then, in this weeks Happy Ending, we explore our favorite gaming universes. Which worlds do you love to game in?

Like this Article? Share it!

About The Author

Gay Gods of GamingJames and Corey, Corey and James - we are the Gay Gods of Gaming. Coming to you every week from the hallowed halls of Harvard University, we descend to pass judgment on queer culture, gaming, and all things atheism with a blend of wit, wisdom, and wickedness that tickles the palette and expands the mind.

3 Responses to GGOG Episode 8 – At What Price St. Patrick’s Gay?

• Why is the parade participation of Boston’s Fire Department and Police Department necessarily a political statement?

If the parade organizers want an apolitical parade, then having (be forced or legally compelled) to include groups with a political intent to march in the parade runs counter to the parade organizer’s aim.

Point of fact, many Irish Americans have occupied such service professions as firemen and police officers, thus stands to reason to include these professionals in the celebration of pro-Irish American culture. There is no political intent by having them march. Likewise with Vets, whether they be Irish or not because there is no political agenda or intent in having military vets march.
CosPlayers dressed as Stormtroppers, Pirates of the Caribbean, Ghostbusters, and X-Wing fighter pilots are allowed to march in the St Patrick’s Day parade because there is no political content or intent in their cosplay.

Contrariwise, Vets for Peace and LGBTQ segmented group are importing their politics into the (secular) parade by virtue of calling explicit attention to their specific cause.
— “We are veterans. . . , we are veterans for peace.”
— Whoa! Hold on there, although we may agree with you about wanting peace, but tagging on that ‘for peace’ is a political statement. That is something we are wanting to avoid.

Likewise,
— “I’m a vet. I am a lesbian vet.”
— Whoa, whoa, hold on there., Lass. Fine you that you like to lick the pussy, as do we, but, by pointing out that you are lesbian is importing unnecessary politics in an otherwise apolitical celebration of (Irish American) culture.

I can imagine James fuming in protest, ‘But how can you insist that including marching vets is not political while excluding the LGBTQ vets, and members Irish American or otherwise from participating in the parade? Answer me that.’

Here is my response.
An aspect of a parade is the celebration and honouring of those marching in the parade for what they do or have done. A part of the St Patrick’s Day parade is to celebrate and pay respect to the brave women & men whose service preserves our way of life whether in fighting fires, fighting crime, or fighting threats to the interest of United States (whether foreign or domestic).
Allowing an explicit LGBTQ-identified person to march or a “for Peace” member highlights a difference between them and others who march in the parade; regardless whether the difference marks them as better or lesser than the rest, that difference is sufficient to distract from the original purpose of why have the parade: celebrating those for what have done or for what they are do.
Under the banner ‘Vets For Peace’ imports a political message which implies that all other vets are for ‘war’ which is false.
Letting LGBTQ vets/fire fighters/etc. to march under the banner identifying their sexuality does not celebrate what they have done and do in service to society but a mis-appropriates the occasion to call celebrate attention to their sexual proclivities. Hence why I can understand the parade organizer’s offered compromise of including but not identifying option.

Remember: it is about respecting and honouring all vets not celebrating, say, _lesbian_ vets.

(Of course, we are ignoring the in-the-closet queer Irish Americans who are already or have already marched in previous St Patrick’s Day parades which is consistent and compatible with keeping the focus upon the actions not the person.)

• Describing gaming as a hobby is perfectly fair. Gaming is a hobby that is cost-prohibitive toward poverty-strict classes, hence giving one reason (not the only) as why the Computer Science industry and college majors is almost devoid of African Americans and Latinos/-as.
Being tech savvy costs money.
(Being my own devil’s advocate, I ask, why do not Black teens who are spending $200+ on single pairs of Nike shoes instead spend the money towards a computer system or gaming system?) Some do, point of fact, but they are so rare, you can count them on a single hand.)

• Re: responsible expectations of working games
I happen to agree with both James and Corey.

I think games are different because software is intellectual property, like a book. You cannot return a novel you did not like to a bookshop.

• I for one would peered into James’s folder of “philosophical treaties” because such content would be of interest to me as a philosopher.

With regards to “Caveat Emptor”, I think Corey is entirely in the wrong here.

What Corey is arguing for, in essence, is that it’s entirely ok for gaming companies to sell junk that they may (or may not, cf Battlefield 4) fix in a timely manner. I realise that the US is high on deregulation, but in many other countries this would entirely *not* fly with any other product.

Imagine buying a jacket that was missing a sleeve, or a pair of pants that the stitching fell apart on after 2 or 3 days: there are no stores that would not refuse a refund on this. Ireland, specifically, has laws that requires goods to be “of a saleable quality”. Corey, by asserting the attitude that ‘that’s just how things are’ is essentially making an Appeal to Tradition.

Historically, consumer (and worker) rights have only ever been enforced when the state has stepped in on their behalf. There were always people who were willing to work the 50-60 hour week, and there will always be people who want to buy the game first. As companies will always want to exploit these people, it’s necessary for there to be a legal buffer to prevent this exploitation.

Or is Corey going to assert that defrauding people is ok, if it’s only for a week or two? (few thousand people times cost of game, times interest from short-term investment, equals exploitative profiteering)